Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2005 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition - time-barred claim - limitation or service of statutory notice - Seeking winding up of the company - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it would be seen that the admission of liability in the list of creditors maintained by the respondent company or in the balance sheet is without any conditions or any strings attached. Thus it is only when there is a bona fide dispute by the respondent company regarding the entries in its account books, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner creditor, such an acknowledgement may not be of much assistance. According to judgment of this Court in the case of Rishi Pal Gupta [1993 (11) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] is to be read only when the petition is based on running account implicate without any confirmation by the respondent company or without any acknowledgement of debt by the respondent company. No doubt in that case the learned Judge while taking note of the facts found that the respondent company had acknowledged the liability towards the petitioner while replying to the Registrar of Companies. However, it appears that while discussing the case, the learned Judge only went by the fact that the petition was based on running account and did not at all deal with the question as to what would be the effect of acknowledging the liability in reply to the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, this case cannot be treated as laying down the proposition that even if the liability is acknowledged by the respondent company in respect of a debt which the respondent company owes to the petitioner, still such a petition would not be maintainable. It is not a case where balance sheet is not passed by the shareholders or there is any note by the Directors questioning the entry in the balance sheet on any plea, like time-barred, etc. Had the respondent company produced the list of creditors, one would have known the exact liability which is admitted by the respondent company qua the petitioner. For not producing this document in spite of Court orders, adverse inference can be drawn. Be as it may, once there is an admission of liability, the petition can be admitted. Therefore, prima facie opinion that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner which debt is acknowledged. Once that is found, the defense of the respondent company that it is a solvent company would also not hold any water. This petition is accordingly admitted to hearing. The question of appointment of provisional Liquidator shall be considered after the citation is published. However, liberty is grated to the respondent company to deposit balance amount of ₹ 1,52,471/- (₹ 2,00,000/- already deposited pursuant to the Division Bench order) along with interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on ₹ 3,52,471/- from 1st August, 1998 (keeping in view that registered notice was sent on 31st July, 1998) with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from the date of this order. The petitioner shall not get the citations published for a period of six weeks. In case the aforesaid amount is not deposited, the petitioner shall proceed with the publication of citations,
|